Pregnancy is not a disease. Some people are just brain dead I guess.
Women have plowed, moved furniture, cleaned house and almost anything they did before just up to a point. I've known people to work till they went into labor. Just all depends on how you are health wise.
Glad something is being done about this discrimination. Now I would like to see people have to serve alcohol to pregnant women.

__________________
...

If the employer did not cause the pregnancy, he should have no responsibility for in any way, manner shape or form, and I feel the following conditions should be enacted.

1. The employer should never be forced by law to provide any form of maternity leave whatsoever.
2. The woman should work during pregnancy at her own risk with no legal responsibility other than perhaps limits on environmental toxins placed upon the employer. Generally, getting pregnant is a the result of voluntary acts not connected to her employment
3. A wise employer may choose to provide maternity leave of some sort,but should never be forced.
4. If the law provides for mandatory leaves for women to engage in reproductive activity, it should have to provide the same for men.

As always, I feel, quite correctly, that almost all aspects of the employment contract, should be entirely private matters between the employer and the employed, and immune from most forms of government interference.

__________________
“Quod scripsi, scripsi"

"Sometimes, the source of the beautiful dawning light that drives back the darkness, is your house burning"

__________________
...

I have championed the same freedoms for all, at the expense of none. Every person has the same rights to private property and freedom of association.

When have I ever stated anything that would restrict a woman's right to get pregnant? Assuming a willing partner or clinic, thats the freedom of every woman.

In this case there is no need to pretend.

Employment civil rights? No such thing. Nobody as a right to employment at all. An employee works (or at least should) at the whim of the employer. Also, the reverse is true, an employer uses the services of the employee soley at the whim of the employee. It's the very definition of freedom of association. Forcing an employer to retain or hire someone is no better than forcing someone to work.

Defending a stupid, party-line generalization with more of same. Do you just copy and paste these out of some liberal handbook?

The rest of your post is just more pointless rant, however this line struck me as particularly odd:

I think you left some wording out of this sentence. Perhaps you meant to type ", which" in between the words "education" and "results". Of course, even with that correction it goes from being false to being a massive overgeneralization. It's like say all democrats want to ban public ownership of firearms.

"same freedoms for all" translating into you deciding which rights you want to ignore and pretend don't exist.


When have I ever said you stated anything about restricting a woman's right to get pregnant?

What this REALLY boils down to is a woman having a right to get pregnant, but then you feel that employers should be able to impose CONSEQUENCES if such a pregnancy occurs.


We've had a civil rights act recognizing employment protections for almost half a decade, and you don't think such a thing exists.
Perhaps you should have paid attention in school...


Nobody is forcing employers to hire someone.
What is prevented is refusing to hire somebody based on pregnancy, or firing somebody because they got pregnant.

I don't know if you're trying to play word games to avoid discussing the actual topic, or you seriously can't keep up to comprehend what the actual issue is.
Either way, it's rather simple.


My comment was not meant to be 100% inclusive. Of course there are exceptions. You, however, are obviously NOT one of them...
And it's rather ironic that you complain about "generalization", as you yourself commit one in your reply (if one were to use your standards) with your meaningless rant on "liberal handbook".

Do you deny that when it comes to Republicans, there is a large group whose attitudes and policies habitually establish (or exploit societal prejudicial practices) to favor men and to the detriment of women?

(Try addressing the argument instead of this meaningless whining over non-existent generalization.)


I find it hilarious that you refuse to address points left and right, but me leaving a word out is something you feel note-worthy.
Your priorities are seriously screwed up.

The sad part of this is I can admit I left out the word "which".
You, on the other hand, seem hopelessly lost in thinking that the plural of a word automatically means "all"...


I never said "all".
If you were to say that democrats want to increase gun control, I would agree with you.
The obvious and intelligent reading recognizing that "democrats" does NOT mean "every single one with absolutely no exception anywhere, anywhen, at any time"...

But as a whole, democrats often do try to push for increased gun control.
"Democrats" being a PLURAL word that indicates more than one. But obviously not necessarily all.

__________________
"Try to become not a man of success, but try rather to become a man of value."
Albert Einstein

Your rambling and goal post moving aside, the point is this:

If I own a business and operate it on private property, I have the sole right to determine who is allowed access to that property. Gov't has tried desperately to usurp that right, to the applause of the entitlement crowd. They have found some willing to give up those freedoms and some unwilling, I count myself among those unwilling. I for one do not allow the gov't to determine who is granted or allowed to retain access to my private property. I do not operate a business at this time, but have owned two successful companies and I can state unequivicaly that anyone (small business owners in particular) who allows the gov't to play a part in their hiring/firing practices is drasticly hindering their chances for success.

Translation:
Everything foundit66 just said was a direct reply to lurch907's statements, some of which he has absolutely no reply to because he was obviously guilty of the transgression himself.
So to move forward, lurch is just going to restate himself and pretend that didn't happen.


No.
You don't.
You WANT that right to be "solely" yours. And for the most part, you have a LOT of leeway in that area.
But as the Civil Rights Act instituted, you clearly have some restrictions on that which should be easily recognized as harmless to actual business purposes.


You whined about the "liberal handbook" in order to ignore poignant observations, but it's hilarious how you yourself obviously rely on mindless non-sequiturs that could be claimed to come from a "conservative handbook" in order to ignore the reality of the situation.

And here, you are egregiously wrong.
Take a simple poll sub-group of just republicans.
When asking the questions: Do you think it should be legal to fire somebody just because they are black / gay / etc, a majority of Republicans will easily state that they support employment civil rights protections.

You may want to call it an "entitlement", but it's nothing of the sort.
It's obviously a ploy to disregard recognized rights as "entitlements".


Often, you lose the context and start speaking in mindless, propagandic double-speak to ignore the bigger picture in favor of your buzz word propaganda.

What we're talking about here is not firing somebody simply because they are black / Jewish / female / gay / pregnant / etc....
Most rational people can admit that favoring prejudice and bigotry is not in the interests of business.
Refusing to hire black people or firing a person just cause they are black is not part of any rational "chance for success.

You're trying to cloak prejudice up in a cloak of "freedom", but at the end of the day you are still talking about revoking at least parts of the Civil Rights Act (where you disregard at least parts of it as having not being rights) in favor of prejudice.

__________________
"Try to become not a man of success, but try rather to become a man of value."
Albert Einstein

Nope, not in favor of prejudice. Because civil rights act or no, prejudice exists and will always exist.

In favor of freedom. Plain and simple. No one has a RIGHT to work at any particular company. Private employers should be free to hire or fire people for any goddamn reason they want.

__________________


You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves. ~ Abraham Lincoln

Gypsy Soul Memories
Scuba Diver Life
Success Freaks

You are committing a classic logical mistake in assuming that just because you want to classify the argument in sub-box B, it doesn't properly fit into sub-box A as well.
The truth is that it can fit into BOTH sub-box A and sub-box B.

Here, you want to call this a "freedom". And you can easily state your opinion that you think that should be a freedom.
However, you are clearly wrong in claiming it is "not in favor of prejudice", because it obviously IS in favor of prejudice.

The Civil Rights Act prevents a business from refusing to hire or from firing a person just cause they are black.
That IS prejudice.
The Civil Rights Act prevents a business from refusing to hire or from firing a person just cause they are Jewish.
That IS prejudice.
The Civil Rights Act prevents a business from refusing to hire or from firing a person just cause they are a woman.
That IS prejudice.


Many freedoms and rights ARE expressed in bigoted ways. Like the KKK having a freedom to assembly and freedom of speech.
They do have that freedom.
But they obviously exercise that freedom for the purposes of prejudice.

So you can clearly express that you want this freedom, while obviously the Civil Rights Act clearly prevents it...
But do NOT try to ignore the fact that what I am talking about has nothing to do with "chances for success" in a business (admittedly lurch907's words)...
It has EVERYTHING to do with prejudice.

__________________
"Try to become not a man of success, but try rather to become a man of value."
Albert Einstein

Well ****ing duh. But the reason they are allowed to be *******s is because of FREEDOM, which is the driving force. They aren't prejudice because of freedom. They aren't given the freedom to be prejudiced because of bigotry. They are given that freedom because we, as a country, used to believe in such freedoms. Obviously, that's changing for the worse.

No, the desire to allow employers more freedom has nothing to do with prejudice and everything to do with freedom. Employers should be free to run their business as THEY see fit. To be free to run it in a manner that THEY feel will be successful. And if they're wrong, that's their own ****ing fault. Not the government's concern.

__________________


You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves. ~ Abraham Lincoln

Gypsy Soul Memories
Scuba Diver Life
Success Freaks